Why be an Eastern Catholic and not an Orthodox Christian?

[Madaglan]

As I said, no-one in the West (no orthodox writer at least) has ever said that union with God is achieved by “more reasoning and accumulation of knowledge through the senses”. That is a false caricature created by modern EOs. Look at the Fathers of the Church; they were perhaps more prone to intellectual and abstract reasoning than the scholastics of the Middle Ages. All the trinitarian and christological dogmas were only settled after much intellectual discussion.

That’s the difference right there: a Catholic would never think of reason as snake venom; something in itself harmful but which may, on some occasions, be put to good use.

St. Thomas never denied that. He said precisely that in his Summas. His comment means that the best efforts of human reason, even when aided by Faith and grace, are not enough to comprehend the infinite reality of God.

Reason is a positive help to the ascetic struggle (which is itself not an end, but a means to the soul’s union with God); and the ascetic struggle a positive help to rational thought (which is also not an end in itself, but a means). The Orthodox East has lost this, and now tries to parade this loss as a mark of its spiritual superiority.

I do not consider it a false caricature created by modern EO. St. Gregory Palamas and the Hesychasts of the 14th century already were considered by their opponents as anti-intellectual for their beliefs on uncreated grace. From what I have read, Barlaam, who rejected uncreated grace and saw the theophanies as created effects, considered knowledge of worldly wisdom necessary for the perfection of a monk. While perhaps not the official line, I do see this tendency in Western Christian theology–as where a theologian is considered one who knows a lot about God by academic study, rather than one who knows God through the Holy Spirit.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Something that has concerned me about Orthodoxy is the reluctance toward development of ideas. For example, as Meghan pointed out, Anselm is frequently mischaracterized, but moreover, did Anselm create a new atonement viewpoint out of thin air? I go back and read some quotes from the Fathers, especially from Augustine, that sound substitutionary and related to God’s honor in the sacrifice. Anselm also appealed to Scripture, prayer, and reason. At what point do the Orthodox say things stay stagnant? Third Century? Fourth? Fifth? Eighth? At what point are things “set” theologically and with soteriology where we consider something innovative and a deviation from orthodox establishment? When is the establishment established? I recognize that excessive innovation is dangerous and can take our faith and piety off course into unecessary tributaries but I also know that trying to understand our journey better isn’t always a bad thing. In my observations of both parties, it seems sometimes that Catholics are far too quick to innovate, develop, and draw conclusions throwing in some circular reasoning. The Orthodox are very fixed in their ways and do not want to move past a certain point. In the end, the Catholic thinking has served them less than the Orthodox way has served them. With all the liturgical abuse and loss of piety and tradition in the Mass perhaps this is evidence that too much innovation and open-mindedness isn’t necessarily a good thing!

I have heard Orthodox say that after the Second Council of Nicaea, 787 AD, basically all the most important questions of doctrine had been decided. There have been no statements of doctrine since then that could be considered infallible dogma, accepted by the Church as far as I know.

I find the Orthodox reluctance to declare new dogma very attractive and encouraging.

 

[dzheremi]

Something that has concerned me about Orthodoxy is the reluctance toward development of ideas. For example, as Meghan pointed out, Anselm is frequently mischaracterized, but moreover, did Anselm create a new atonement viewpoint out of thin air? I go back and read some quotes from the Fathers, especially from Augustine, that sound substitutionary and related to God’s honor in the sacrifice. Anselm also appealed to Scripture, prayer, and reason.

I may be wrong here, but Augustine does not seem to be as widely read in the East and the Orient as he is in the West, either historically or currently.

At what point do the Orthodox say things stay stagnant?

It depends on which church you’re looking at, doesn’t it? The EO accept 7 councils. The OO accept 3. Of course there are also holy men and women from after these times whose words and examples provide guidance to the people in either (or both) churches, so I wouldn’t really call it “stagnant”, but they’re not sources of doctrine. Doctrine is fixed at whatever point the communion said “no” to something that other people had come up with, I suppose…

I recognize that excessive innovation is dangerous and can take our faith and piety off course into unecessary tributaries but I also know that trying to understand our journey better isn’t always a bad thing.

I don’t think it’s ever a bad thing. We should always understand what we’re doing, what we believe, and why. The question is, do we need new doctrine to do this, or do we have enough from the Fathers and the modern leaders who are carry on in their path? I haven’t heard anything from the Orthodox that is in any way less illuminating than what Catholics come up with, and the Orthodox operate just fine without the medieval developments that characterize much of the Catholic way of doing things. What is gained by more doctrine atop more doctrine? I understand that some people see this as clarifying things, but I don’t see how. It’s sort of like…what is easier to understand, a short pamphlet detailing the central beliefs of the church, or a giant 12,000 page tome detailing ever aspect of the church? It all depends on how you look at things. If I want to sit there and learn everything that is possible to know about the church (say, if I’m going to be a contestant on “Church Jeopardy” or something), I’ll read the 12,000 page tome. If, however, I want to know what I need to believe in order to commune at the church (in order to experience it, that is), I’ll read the pamphlet. Now, the information in the pamphlet is no doubt included in the 12,000 page tome (somewhere!), but at some point the mere weight of it all is likely to dissuade me from ever finishing it, especially if I can get the essence of the faith in digestible bites elsewhere.

As far as Catholicism and the development of doctrine is concerned, I am especially disinclined to read the 12,000 page tome when it seems like its authors resist finishing it. If every 50, 100, 150 or whatever years they come out with a “new edition” with more stuff in it, then how can I keep up? And where was this stuff before, if it is so necessary to have it now? I’ve read that this is a classic symptom of writer’s block (in people trying to finish their doctoral dissertations or what have you). The feeling that it’s never quite done. That’s what Catholicism seems like to me. Instead of being confident that at their roots they have solid foundations in truly unflappable Patristic witness (which they do have! It’s not like only the Orthodox have access to the wisdom of the Fathers), they engage in all kinds of retroactive speculation and circular reasoning which makes even the appeals to the past seem skeptical in light of the developments of the present.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I put my foot down on page 7,500!

I may be wrong here, but Augustine does not seem to be as widely read in the East and the Orient as he is in the West, either historically or currently.

It depends on which church you’re looking at, doesn’t it? The EO accept 7 councils. The OO accept 3. Of course there are also holy men and women from after these times whose words and examples provide guidance to the people in either (or both) churches, so I wouldn’t really call it “stagnant”, but they’re not sources of doctrine. Doctrine is fixed at whatever point the communion said “no” to something that other people had come up with, I suppose…

I don’t think it’s ever a bad thing. We should always understand what we’re doing, what we believe, and why. The question is, do we need new doctrine to do this, or do we have enough from the Fathers and the modern leaders who are carry on in their path? I haven’t heard anything from the Orthodox that is in any way less illuminating than what Catholics come up with, and the Orthodox operate just fine without the medieval developments that characterize much of the Catholic way of doing things. What is gained by more doctrine atop more doctrine? I understand that some people see this as clarifying things, but I don’t see how. It’s sort of like…what is easier to understand, a short pamphlet detailing the central beliefs of the church, or a giant 12,000 page tome detailing ever aspect of the church? It all depends on how you look at things. If I want to sit there and learn everything that is possible to know about the church (say, if I’m going to be a contestant on “Church Jeopardy” or something), I’ll read the 12,000 page tome. If, however, I want to know what I need to believe in order to commune at the church (in order to experience it, that is), I’ll read the pamphlet. Now, the information in the pamphlet is no doubt included in the 12,000 page tome (somewhere!), but at some point the mere weight of it all is likely to dissuade me from ever finishing it, especially if I can get the essence of the faith in digestible bites elsewhere.

As far as Catholicism and the development of doctrine is concerned, I am especially disinclined to read the 12,000 page tome when it seems like its authors resist finishing it. If every 50, 100, 150 or whatever years they come out with a “new edition” with more stuff in it, then how can I keep up? And where was this stuff before, if it is so necessary to have it now? I’ve read that this is a classic symptom of writer’s block (in people trying to finish their doctoral dissertations or what have you). The feeling that it’s never quite done. That’s what Catholicism seems like to me. Instead of being confident that at their roots they have solid foundations in truly unflappable Patristic witness (which they do have! It’s not like only the Orthodox have access to the wisdom of the Fathers), they engage in all kinds of retroactive speculation and circular reasoning which makes even the appeals to the past seem skeptical in light of the developments of the present.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I’m a Roman Catholic but with much admiration and respect for Eastern theology and spiritual life.

However, from my point of view, it seems that the Orthodox have some shortcomings (besides the doctrinal questions and the petrine primacy issue).

I saw a member here saying how there “just weren’t” heresies in Orthodox Christendom, as if that underscored their more stable, and presumably apostolic, worship and thought. However, that seems to me a huge historical naivety.

First because there HAVE been many heresies in the Orthodox world. Someone mentioned the Old Believers (and what kind of mentality is it necessary to go into schism because of a change in how many fingers are used to cross oneself and other similar matters?); pre-schism Iconoclasm (which might well be behind the mystical theories surrounding Icons that pits them as something above “mere” sacred art) there were also the Strigolniki in the 14th century, the judaizers in the 15th (who got even some bishops on their side), the doukhobors (from 17th century onwards, a kind of Russian protestantism). There are probably many more, known only to academics, since Russian history is much less known to the masses than Western history.

Not to mention all the heterodox beliefs that ought to be condemned or at least officially clarified but, as far as I know, never were (perhaps this is a wisdom of the Orthodox, not creating sharp divisions unnecessarily over fine doctrinal points - something Rome sure could have learned some centuries ago): the debate whether there is such a thing as devil toll-houses (inherited from gnosticism?), that very weird phenomenon of slavophilia, going so far as a bishop in the 20th century affirming that the Serbs were a superior people, destined to suffer innocently more than others for the sins of mankind (was he oblivious to the atrocities committed by the Serbian kingdom?), the things that economy may or may not be own value.

A few thoughts:

First, you seem to be focusing on Russia. Why? If the only “heterodox” beliefs in the Orthodox world were those that emerged from a country as vast and as diverse as Russia, I would consider that quite positive.

Second, whatever “heterodox” beliefs may exist in the Orthodox world, nothing has occurred like the Protestant Reformation, the Old Catholic split, etc. These all resulted, one could argue, from doctrinal development in the Latin Church that did not occur in the East. It seems perfectly plausible that a Martin Luther didn’t emerge in the East because there was no basis for such a person to emerge–no indulgences, no purgatory, no Infallibility, etc.

Third, why is it necessary to dogmatise about theologoumena? Are Toll Houses, for example, an essential doctrine? If not, why not just show charity. Pious opinions may differ.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I do not consider it a false caricature created by modern EO. St. Gregory Palamas and the Hesychasts of the 14th century already were considered by their opponents as anti-intellectual for their beliefs on uncreated grace. From what I have read, Barlaam, who rejected uncreated grace and saw the theophanies as created effects, considered knowledge of worldly wisdom necessary for the perfection of a monk. While perhaps not the official line, I do see this tendency in Western Christian theology–as where a theologian is considered one who knows a lot about God by academic study, rather than one who knows God through the Holy Spirit.

There are a lot of “Christians” who know God through the Holy Spirit that aren’t Catholic, EO, or OO… so that’s not quite enough is it?
For that you’re quoting something you read – which is academic pursuit in itself.
When an EO reads a website and looks up the fathers of the church and for that matter engages in debates on CAF that is an intellectual exercise as well.

 

[mardukm]

I do not consider it a false caricature created by modern EO. St. Gregory Palamas and the Hesychasts of the 14th century already were considered by their opponents as anti-intellectual for their beliefs on uncreated grace. From what I have read, Barlaam, who rejected uncreated grace and saw the theophanies as created effects, considered knowledge of worldly wisdom necessary for the perfection of a monk. While perhaps not the official line, I do see this tendency in Western Christian theology–as where a theologian is considered one who knows a lot about God by academic study, rather than one who knows God through the Holy Spirit.

That’s the whole problem with the polemic EO caricature of orthodox Latin Catholic Scholasticism. The EO polemic focuses on a time when Scholasticism was still debated within the Latin CC, and appeals to the more extreme forms of Aristotelian Scholasticism to condemn Latin Catholicism as a whole. The second problem is that the EO polemic seems to identify Latin Scholasticism with Barlaamism. If it is true that Barlaam insisted that wordly wisdom is necessary for the perfection of a monk, Barlaam does not represent orthodox Latin Scholasticism, but an extreme form (sounds like Averroism).

In truth, the tension between mysticism/apophaticism and scholasticism within the Latin Catholic Church was not resolved until after the time of Barlaam and St. Palamas. The final outcome was a holy balance between Faith and Reason.

So what has been expressed here is indeed a false caricature created by modern EO. Soon (hopefully later today), I will offer a critique of that piece provided by brother Mickey from Orthodoxinfo.org, which might help you understand what the Latins actually teach about the matter (from Catholic Magisterial sources).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

A few thoughts:

First, you seem to be focusing on Russia. Why? If the only “heterodox” beliefs in the Orthodox world were those that emerged from a country as vast and as diverse as Russia, I would consider that quite positive.

Diverse? In what sense? Russia was an absolute monarchy.

Second, whatever “heterodox” beliefs may exist in the Orthodox world, nothing has occurred like the Protestant Reformation, the Old Catholic split, etc. These all resulted, one could argue, from doctrinal development in the Latin Church that did not occur in the East. It seems perfectly plausible that a Martin Luther didn’t emerge in the East because there was no basis for such a person to emerge–no indulgences, no purgatory, no Infallibility, etc.

There was not much chance for a Martin Luther to rise up in Eastern Orthodoxy because Eastern Orthodoxy existed in an absolute monarchy which did not inspire that kind of free thinking. The closest one was Barlaam, but the vacillating fortunes of the Barlaamites, as well as the Palamites, depended in large part on State support. The main reasons for the spread of Lutheranism or Calvinism, etc. was State support in different countries. There was nothing comparable in the lands in which Eastern Orthodoxy found itself (i.e., competing political super powers). If there was only one government which professed Catholicism in the West (instead of numerous competing super powers), I seriously doubt Protestantism would have gained any foothold at all in the West. So don’t be so quick to blame the spread of Protestantism in Western lands on the supposed errors of the Western Church.

Third, why is it necessary to dogmatise about theologoumena?

It is not, but the Church is obligated to respond if a certain theologoumenon is causing sufficient agitation in the Church as a whole, wouldn’t you agree?

Are Toll Houses, for example, an essential doctrine? If not, why not just show charity. Pious opinions may differ.

Have you ever read treatises by supporters of the Toll House doctrine in EO’xy? Check out Father Seraphim Rose. He asserts that those who do not believe in the Toll House doctrine are heterodox. In an Orthodox website I know of, debates between supporters of the Toll House doctrine and the opposition had become so caustic that they were relegated to a special forum that requires special permission for participation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I may be wrong here, but Augustine does not seem to be as widely read in the East and the Orient as he is in the West, either historically or currently.

He’s pretty well read in Coptic Orthodoxy, as well as Armenians (IIRC). Like Latin Catholicism, Coptic Orthodoxy does not accept EVERYTHING that St. Augustine taught.

As far as Catholicism and the development of doctrine is concerned, I am especially disinclined to read the 12,000 page tome when it seems like its authors resist finishing it.

Everything Catholicism believes today has always existed in the Church. It is impossible to have new doctrines, but we can have new dogmas (authoritative affirmations of certain elements of the ancient Faith). Of course, since you believe the newer dogmas of the Catholic Church are actually new doctrines, your position that the tome has not yet been finished is understandable. Just be aware that Catholics don’t see it that way.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JesusforMadrid]

This is one side of the historical naivety. The other side is the political reality of the Orthodox world. Why do we know so little about the Orthodox heresies? Why didn’t they last (well, some did, but barely)? Because of the inherent and apparent fysuperiority of Orthodoxy? Not quite. The Byzantine empire, and after its fall the Russian empire, crushed and oppressed religious dissent with absolute violence.

Connected with this political reality, the Orthodox world was one of much more poverty and less education than the West. It was not out of pious reverence and theosis that the masses of Russian serfs remained in squalor and ignorance. That is not a testament to the purer spirituality of Russia; but of its oppressive social system, which indeed blocked any possibility of cultural flourishing outside the narrow of the liturgy and Church architecture and spiritual life, which were made possible by the oppressive autocratic State, first in Constantinople, then in Russia.

Why didn’t universities appear in the Orthodox East? Why did Russian intellectuals, when they eventually arise, become so enthralled with all things Western? Because theirs was a very poor (not only economically, but also culturally) environment.

A thriving and productive intellectual world will give rise to more heterodoxy? Given our fallen condition, maybe. But it also allows for a more mature life of the soul, one which doesn’t need historical naivety and mystifications to see its own value.

Your argument here is interesting, although debatable. Let me see if I understand it.

1. Oppressive governments stifle intellectual, spiritual and economic freedom
   2A. Lack of Intellectual freedom leads to a lack of growth of great universities
   2B. Lack of Spiritual freedom guards against heterodoxy
   2C. Lack of Economic freedom constrains economic riches
2. The Orthodox East suffered from more oppressive governments than the West
3. The Orthodox East was economically and culturally poor, albeit less heterodox spiritually.

There is much to admire and agree with in your arguments. However, you would need to write a many volumed book to even begin to support your premises above.

For example, did the development of the heterodox filioque arise out of a particular intellectual freedom in Fourth Century Toledo Spain that didn’t exist in the East? Or rather was it a particular Western response to the same threat of Arianism that bedevilled the East. Premise 2B seems in doubt.

Likewise, does economic freedom determine economic riches? Jaded Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel argues that economic riches depend more on accidents of history and evolution. Rodney Stark and Max Weber argue that it depends more on belief systems, particularly the Protestant work ethic. Premise 2C seems in doubt.

You would have a difficult time arguing that the ruling systems during the Dark Ages in the West, when many heterodox Roman Catholic ideas began, were somehow less oppressive than the systems in the East. Premise 3 seems in doubt.

Interestingly, you are in fact saying that the Byzantine East, for all it’s faults, preserved an Orthodox faith. Here I would agree with you. So if the Western democratic, liberal economic system could be combined with the Orthodox Christian faith, wouldn’t that be the best of all worlds by your own definition?

Write the book.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not able to write a lengthy response with my phone now, but I will say that it always makes me laugh when Barlaam, the anti-Latin Byzantinw monk, is brought up as an example of “Western Scholasticism”. He was an Easterner through and through, and built his argument from purely Eastern, non-Aristotlean sources, namely Pseudo-Dionysis.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I’m not able to write a lengthy response with my phone now, but I will say that it always makes me laugh when Barlaam, the anti-Latin Byzantinw monk, is brought up as an example of “Western Scholasticism”. He was an Easterner through and through, and built his argument from purely Eastern, non-Aristotlean sources, namely Pseudo-Dionysis.

Peace and God bless!

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

Brother Ghosty, it’s been such a long time since we’ve corresponded (my fault!). I am blessed to see you here. IIRC, you are well-read on both Aquinas and Palamas? I look forward to reading any gems of wisdom you can offer us.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

He’s pretty well read in Coptic Orthodoxy, as well as Armenians (IIRC). Like Latin Catholicism, Coptic Orthodoxy does not accept EVERYTHING that St. Augustine taught.

From my personal experience among Coptic Orthodox people, there is some truth to this, but it is not to be taken as any sort of acceptance of the type of errors that the RCC has embraced, with Augustine as the evidence of their antiquity (as though being old is the only criterion by which something is to be deemed acceptable). In fact, the majority of Coptic Orthodox people I know who are in any sense well-read on their own church’s history and theology are not favorable toward Augustine, and see his popularity as ruinous to the expression of traditional Coptic theology (as he was mostly unknown to the Orthodox before contact with Western missionaries only a few centuries ago), in much the same way as Western/Romantic art is present in many Coptic churches where it has replaced the traditional Coptic iconography. It is not a good thing!

Everything Catholicism believes today has always existed in the Church. It is impossible to have new doctrines, but we can have new dogmas (authoritative affirmations of certain elements of the ancient Faith). Of course, since you believe the newer dogmas of the Catholic Church are actually new doctrines, your position that the tome has not yet been finished is understandable. Just be aware that Catholics don’t see it that way.

And you just be aware, likewise, that I am as unmoved by your protestations as you are by mine (if everything the RCC teaches has always and everywhere been believed, why was the IC rejected or questioned by several Western saints?). See again the above about the relationship between antiquity and Orthodoxy. They are not the same thing, though Orthodoxy is the faith of antiquity.

 

[Madaglan]

I’m not able to write a lengthy response with my phone now, but I will say that it always makes me laugh when Barlaam, the anti-Latin Byzantinw monk, is brought up as an example of “Western Scholasticism”. He was an Easterner through and through, and built his argument from purely Eastern, non-Aristotlean sources, namely Pseudo-Dionysis.

Peace and God bless!

Hi Ghosty,

Barlaam strikes me as an enigma. He wrote anti-Latin works in which he condemned the filioque, but in later life became a Catholic bishop.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

From my personal experience among Coptic Orthodox people, there is some truth to this, but it is not to be taken as any sort of acceptance of the type of errors that the RCC has embraced, with Augustine as the evidence of their antiquity (as though being old is the only criterion by which something is to be deemed acceptable).

I’m interested to know what you think these errors are that the Latin CC has embraced from St. Augustine, especially as I’ve already indicated that not even the Latin CC accepts everything that St. Augustine taught.

In fact, the majority of Coptic Orthodox people I know who are in any sense well-read on their own church’s history and theology are not favorable toward Augustine, and see his popularity as ruinous to the expression of traditional Coptic theology.

I’ve met Coptic Orthodox like those too, but the one’s I’ve met have been converts from EO’xy who seem to have carried their dislike of St. Augustine with them into Coptic Orthodoxy. I’ve never met a cradle Copt with a disrespectful attitude towards St. Augustine.

(as he was mostly unknown to the Orthodox before contact with Western missionaries only a few centuries ago)

Highly debatable or hardly believeable, since the Sees of Carthage and Alexandria were neighbors and St. Augustine is a pre-Chalcedonian Schism saint.

And you just be aware, likewise, that I am as unmoved by your protestations as you are by mine (if everything the RCC teaches has always and everywhere been believed, why was the IC rejected or questioned by several Western saints?).

By the same rationale, we should reject the teachings of all the Ecumenical Councils. Since they were dogmatized at only later periods in Church history, and there was clear and evident rejection and questioning of the teachings of those Councils, then, according to your logic, their teachings were not always and everywhere believed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,
I’m interested to know what you think these errors are that the Latin CC has embraced from St. Augustine, especially as I’ve already indicated that not even the Latin CC accepts everything that St. Augustine taught.

I didn’t say that the CC accepts everything from Augustine, only that Augustine is presented as evidence for the pre-schism antiquity (and hence legitimacy?) of certain RC positions. The RC understanding of original sin is one such example.

I’ve met Coptic Orthodox like those too, but the one’s I’ve met have been converts from EO’xy who seem to have carried their dislike of St. Augustine with them into Coptic Orthodoxy. I’ve never met a cradle Copt with a disrespectful attitude towards St. Augustine.

Okay. The person I had in mind when I wrote that is actual a British convert to Orthodoxy within the British Orthodox Church (which wasn’t even always under the Coptic Patriarch), and was previously a Protestant, never an EO. Both of our experiences point to the danger of generalizing too much based on anecdotal experience. And he doesn’t at all have a disrespectful attitude towards Augustine, just a realistic attitude about him given the history of the Coptic Orthodox, in which St. Augustine does not figure prominently.

Highly debatable or hardly believeable, since the Sees of Carthage and Alexandria were neighbors and St. Augustine is a pre-Chalcedonian Schism saint.

It’s you against people who are actually Coptic Orthodox, then. It’s not as though Augustine is not included in the Synexarion (here), I’m just saying that he doesn’t appear to have had the impact on the East or the Orient that he has on the West. That’s all, and not at all disrespectful or a stretch.

By the same rationale, we should reject the teachings of all the Ecumenical Councils. Since they were dogmatized at only later periods in Church history, and there was clear and evident rejection and questioning of the teachings of those Councils, then, according to your logic, their teachings were not always and everywhere believed.

I think taking things to either extreme (that literally every single person within a given tradition needs to agree, or that it doesn’t matter if no one agrees) is unhealthy. Instead, we should look at the content of each side’s argument, and come to a general understanding of what degree of consensus is reasonable relative to the importance of the doctrine. In the case of the Latin Church, since it has taken certain opinions and elevated them to something beyond that, even to the point of making them necessary to be assented to for salvation, it makes sense that there better be that much stronger evidence for the necessity of such opinions, and dissent (in so far as it exists) should be examined that much more closely. This is frustrated by the fact that some people who the LCC have recognized as saints, such as St. Bonaventure, apparently had serious reservations with particular doctrine that is now taken as normative in the LCC.

So please, don’t throw it back in my face that the LCC is as dysfunctional as it is in this regard. If it is possible to become a saint while disagreeing with infallibly-declared doctrine, then I think it is absolutely right to question what exactly the standard is for the CC, just as Gurney has wisely asked similar questions about the EO at the beginning of the current discussion.

 

[Joel_PF]

Your argument here is interesting, although debatable. Let me see if I understand it.

1. Oppressive governments stifle intellectual, spiritual and economic freedom
   2A. Lack of Intellectual freedom leads to a lack of growth of great universities
   2B. Lack of Spiritual freedom guards against heterodoxy
   2C. Lack of Economic freedom constrains economic riches
2. The Orthodox East suffered from more oppressive governments than the West
3. The Orthodox East was economically and culturally poor, albeit less heterodox spiritually.

You’re misinterpreting what I said. I said that a decrepit intellectual climate, like that of Byzantium or Russia for many centuries, gives space for less heresies to appear, but it is also not conducive to new and stronger ways of presenting and defending orthodox Faith.

However, heresies still do appear, and if one of them becomes accepted as the norm by the institutional power and ecclesiastical hierarchy (being outside the communion of Rome, the separated churches can, sadly, fall for heresies; and, what is more common, mistakes in attitude that might not amount to heresy, but can be very damaging), it is that much harder to get rid of them.

If you never leave your room, you’ll be more guarded against unclean looks and even fornication. However, you’ll never marry. That’s the dilemma.

For example, did the development of the heterodox filioque arise out of a particular intellectual freedom in Fourth Century Toledo Spain that didn’t exist in the East?

No, nor did I ever claim that every heresy is always the outcome of more intellectual freedom.
The Filioque, which even serious Orthodox accept (in its correct interpretation, which is the one always given by the Catholic Church: i.e., the Father is the absolute origin of the procession), was added to the Creed for serious pastoral needs, and with time became the standard formulation of the Western Church.
At the brief reunion of the Council of Lyons, the Greeks present recited the creed with the filioque. There is nothing reproachable in the doctrine. It is just a question of adding it or not to the creed, which might well be left to the freedom of each church.

You would have a difficult time arguing that the ruling systems during the Dark Ages in the West, when many heterodox Roman Catholic ideas began, were somehow less oppressive than the systems in the East.

Difficult time? Have you any idea of how little power small kings in the West had? But more important than that, the West had the Papacy. The Papacy didn’t have direct temporal powers over any European nation (excepting, of course, the Papal States), but it did have a spiritual authority. That way, the balance between kings and Pope worked out to foster a much greater freedom than in the East, always ruled by iron-fisted emperors and tzars.

There was in fact a Western Empire, but it never dominated the whole of Europe, and as soon as it was consolidated it was dismembered. Then, from the 11th century onwards, its power and influence was ever diminishing, especially because of its repeated losses of spiritual claims to the See of Rome.

Interestingly, you are in fact saying that the Byzantine East, for all it’s faults, preserved an Orthodox faith.

Never said that. I said that in its moribund intellectual atmosphere, new ideas, both good and bad, were less likely to appear. Sadly, the Byzantine East, though it did and still does preserve the Faith, incur in some grave errors, such as ascribing only a primacy of honor to the See of Rome, defending the heterodox view that schism invalidates Sacraments, etc.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Something that has concerned me about Orthodoxy is the reluctance toward development of ideas. For example, as Meghan pointed out, Anselm is frequently mischaracterized, but moreover, did Anselm create a new atonement viewpoint out of thin air? I go back and read some quotes from the Fathers, especially from Augustine, that sound substitutionary and related to God’s honor in the sacrifice. Anselm also appealed to Scripture, prayer, and reason. At what point do the Orthodox say things stay stagnant? Third Century? Fourth? Fifth? Eighth? At what point are things “set” theologically and with soteriology where we consider something innovative and a deviation from orthodox establishment? When is the establishment established? I recognize that excessive innovation is dangerous and can take our faith and piety off course into unecessary tributaries but I also know that trying to understand our journey better isn’t always a bad thing. In my observations of both parties, it seems sometimes that Catholics are far too quick to innovate, develop, and draw conclusions throwing in some circular reasoning. The Orthodox are very fixed in their ways and do not want to move past a certain point. In the end, the Catholic thinking has served them less than the Orthodox way has served them. With all the liturgical abuse and loss of piety and tradition in the Mass perhaps this is evidence that too much innovation and open-mindedness isn’t necessarily a good thing!

Scott: My thoughts after reading this post:

Huston Smith put it best: Catholicism tends to emphasize doctrinal development, Orthodoxy tends to stress continuity. For me that sums it up nicely, anything beyond that is stretching things and splitting hairs. I do not believe truth is relative, but I personally think that I have to go where I feel comfortable, with what is familar. That is either Catholicism or Anglicanism for now. Now, that does not mean that I cease to inquire about Orthodoxy, in fact, just the opposite. But I am nowhere ready to make the jump over to the East at this time-the future may be a different story. I do not think that most EO or RC Christians really consider these things or do around thinking about them and arguing with others and themselves about it. I think most, even with doubts, probably stick with what is familar to them personally. Perhaps reaching out to the other side for greater understanding and dialogue is the first step. I wish to learn from the perspective of my Eastern minded brothers and sisters, but I know that I am not Eastern in my mindset or approach to Christianity. Instead of being something that I am not, I can learn from others who are.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great thoughts indeed, Brad. I am in a “fact-finding” mode right now so to speak. I’m keeping my heart open and that’s why I try to listen to everyone, I mean everyone, in going on this journey. Feeling comfortable is important. I actually have to say that if I had to choose which parish I felt happiest, most well-adjusted, and comfortable I’d say it would be the Anglican parish. I loved it. Having a pretty Western mindset and enjoying the BOCP liturgy as well as loving the rector, Father James, so much, I miss that place.

I actually felt more comfortable in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy than the Catholic Mass in my area. I can’t say this about all Catholic parishes, but in my entire diocese I think they lack a connection to the flock, there’s a disconnect and a bit of a cold edge. The sermons are banal, the liturgy littered with abuse and watered-down music. I actually feel more ill-at-ease there. My first visit to the Orthodox DL was “woah, what the heck?” come to find out, that’s pretty normal for most newcomers. I went back though. Something in my heart told me to give it another chance. The second time I went with Kate and we really enjoyed it. Kate has been in the spiritual doldroms with Catholicism for a LONG time. I expected her to not like the DL. Instead she went OFF about how much she enjoyed it and hopes we’re going back.

So sometimes I do like what God said to Abraham: listen to your wife. She is wise.

Maybe there’s something to Orthodoxy? I’m still a newbie to it. Honestly I’m fresh new to it.

We’ll see…

but I totally get your feeling.

Scott: My thoughts after reading this post:

Huston Smith put it best: Catholicism tends to emphasize doctrinal development, Orthodoxy tends to stress continuity. For me that sums it up nicely, anything beyond that is stretching things and splitting hairs. I do not believe truth is relative, but I personally think that I have to go where I feel comfortable, with what is familar. That is either Catholicism or Anglicanism for now. Now, that does not mean that I cease to inquire about Orthodoxy, in fact, just the opposite. But I am nowhere ready to make the jump over to the East at this time-the future may be a different story. I do not think that most EO or RC Christians really consider these things or do around thinking about them and arguing with others and themselves about it. I think most, even with doubts, probably stick with what is familar to them personally. Perhaps reaching out to the other side for greater understanding and dialogue is the first step. I wish to learn from the perspective of my Eastern minded brothers and sisters, but I know that I am not Eastern in my mindset or approach to Christianity. Instead of being something that I am not, I can learn from others who are.

 

[Madaglan]

I’m not able to write a lengthy response with my phone now, but I will say that it always makes me laugh when Barlaam, the anti-Latin Byzantinw monk, is brought up as an example of “Western Scholasticism”. He was an Easterner through and through, and built his argument from purely Eastern, non-Aristotlean sources, namely Pseudo-Dionysis.

Peace and God bless!

Some additional thoughts: Scholasticism was more than a reliance on Aristotle; it attempted to reconcile and integrate classical philosophy with theology. While Barlaam may not have based his arguments on Aristotle, it was his rationalist, philosophical approach to Christian theology that bore similarities to the scholasticism taking place in the West. I find agreement with Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) when he writes:

Barlaam’s views - that we cannot really know Who the Holy Spirit is exactly (an outgrowth of which is agnosticism), that the ancient Greek philosophers are superior to the Prophets and the Apostles (since reason is above the vision of the Apostles), that the light of the Transfiguration is something which is created and can be undone, that the hesychastic way of life (i.e. the purification of the heart and the unceasing noetic prayer) is not essential - are views which express a scholastic and, subsequently, a secularised point of view of theology. Saint Gregory Palamas foresaw the danger that these views held for Orthodoxy and through the power and energy of the Most Holy Spirit and the experience which he himself had acquired as a successor to the Holy Fathers, he confronted this great danger and preserved unadulterated the Orthodox Faith and Tradition.

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx

The East has had its share of rationalists. Arius and the Origenists, for example, along with Barlaam, may be suggested. The West for its part has had its anti-scholastics (e.g. St. Bernard of Clairvaux). I do not think one can clearly cut a scholastic West versus mystical East picture; but I do think the West, especially since the rise of humanism and the Enlightenment, has tended more toward this rationalistic approach (where it appears in the East, it’s usually from the influence of the West–as with the 19th century nihilists of Russia). Unfortunately, at the time of the Renaissance, many scholars in the East helped fuel rationalism in the West (e.g. Pletho).